The principles underlying the Bill are supported by more than 70 per cent of the population, yet some faith groups are opposing it vigorously. The Bill should be given a fair hearing, the legal ambiguities should be resolved and the Church should stop trying to deny us choice over one of life’s most important decisions.

PROFESSOR NICK MOORE
Taunton

Sir, Deborah Annetts, of Dignity in Dying (report, May 10), calls the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) survey on assisted dying, which showed 73 per cent of doctors to be against a change in the law, a “sham” and claims that in the most recent “major survey” two thirds of doctors favoured legislation that would enable them to prescribe lethal drugs to their patients. To which survey, I wonder, is she referring? In the largest surveys of medical opinion quoted in the House of Lords Select Committee report on the Bill, those favouring a change in the law ranged from only 22 to 38 per cent.

In addition to the RCP, those colleges opposing a change in the law include the royal colleges for GPs, nurses, psychiatrists, and anaesthetists. Even the BMA maintains a neutral stance. Members of the Association for Palliative Medicine, representing 800 specialists, remain 95 per cent opposed.

PETER SAUNDERS
Care Not Killing Alliance

Sir, The debate over physician-assisted suicide would benefit from a more measured consideration than that undertaken by the clergy and medical profession. The history of Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act negates the “slippery slope” argument. Between 1998 and 2005 some 246 persons availed themselves of the Act. In the most recent year, the figure was 38, which hardly suggests a snowball effect. Moreover, the people of Oregon have repeatedly endorsed the Act in referendums, despite attempts to deprive them of the right to enact such legislation.

Other states, including California, are now to hold referendums on similar programmes, in the belief that the people have the right to decide this matter for themselves.

As long as UK doctors are free from any obligation to administer medicine which they believe violates their conscience, they should respect the right of terminally ill patients to choose to die with dignity.

DR ROBERT J. MCKEEVER
School of Sociology, Politics and International Relations
University of Reading

Sir, The RCP and the RCGP are indulging themselves over the lives of others. They want to deny people the right to a peaceful death even when it is self-chosen, and would thus condemn them to an intolerable life.

This is nothing to do with conscience, as the Bill has sufficient opt-outs to accommodate that. It is simply the arrogance of a profession which was brought up to believe that the “doctor knows best”.

DUNCAN HEENAN
Isle of Wight

Sirs, As a worshipping Christian I would like to cite two cases of friends in the Netherlands, both suffering from terminal cancer. They were supported by their families, GPs and their churches. Their deaths were dignified and took place at home with their families. Both agreed that simply knowing that the final decision was in their hands gave them enormous relief and comfort. They knew that they would not have to bear more suffering than they felt able to, neither would they have to suffer the indignity of losing mental capacity.

It is not a choice that all will wish to make, but the option should be there for those who do.

CHRISTINA VAN MELZEN
Woodbridge, Suffolk

Sir, I found the May 6 Credo, “The Jewish tradition is firmly opposed to assisted dying” refreshingly straightforward. Those who oppose the terminally ill having the right to choose to die should admit they think that way because of personal religious beliefs. As if it’s not enough that a religious minority tries to restrict the choices the rest of us can make, a report by the British Humanist Association, In Bad Faith, found “evidence of political subterfuge that is deliberate and strategic”, in some of the campaigning against the Bill.

TAMORA LANGLEY
London W1

Explore Letters

• Feedback